- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100349 OF 2024 C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.100558 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB) WRIT APPEAL NO.100566 OF 2024 (LA-RES) IN CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100349/2024: BETWEEN 1. SRI. MOHAN S/O. NARAYAN KADEMANI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 1.A SMT. ANJANA W/O. MOHAN KADEMANI AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KADEMANI BUILDING, IIND CROSS, MALMADDI, DHARWAD. 1.B SMT. SPOORTI W/O. VISHAL DESAI AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 2906, WING 29, LODHA AMARA, KOLSHET ROAD, THANE WEST, THANE, MAHARASHTRA-400607. …COMPLAINANTS (BY SRI. M.R. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SMT. DIVYA PRABHU AGE. MAJOR, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580001. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 2 . SRI. SHALIM HUSEN AGE. MAJOR, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580001. 3 . SRI. MARUTHI BYKOD, AGE. MAJOR, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, K.A.D.B., LAKAMANAHALLI, DHARWAD DIVISION, DHARWAD-580001. …ACCUSED 4 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. …PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ SABARAD V., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR A3; SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR PROFORMA RESPONDENT; NOTICE TO A1 & A2 ARE SERVED) THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950, PRAYING TO, A SUITABLE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED BE TAKEN FOR HAVING VIOLATED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO.71377/2012 DATED 26-07-2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY IGNORED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COURT AND DISPOSSESSING THE MEMBERS OF COMPLAINANT. IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100558/2024: BETWEEN 1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, LAKKMANHALLI, DHARWAD DIVISION, DHARWAD-580001. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS SECRETARY,14/3, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-1. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ SABARAD V., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SRI. BHIMAPPA S/O TIMMANNA KADEMANI, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O RADDIGERI STREET, ANNIGERI, TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD-582201. 2 . SRI. RANGANNA S/O TIMMANNA KADEMANI AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O RADDIGERI STREET, ANNIGERI, TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD-582201. 3 . SRI. VENKATESH S/O TIMMANNA KADEMANI AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O RADDIGERI STREET, ANNIGERI, TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD-582201. 4 . SRI. ANAND S/O TIMMANNA KADEMANI AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O RADDIGERI STREET, ANNIGERI, TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD-582201. 5 . JSS MAHAVIDYA PEETH JAGADGURU SRI. SHIVARATHRI RAJENDRA CIRCLE, MYSORE-570004. R/BY ITS SECRETARY C.G. BETASURMATH S/O. GANGAYYA AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, R/O. JSS MAHAVIDYA PEETH, JAGADGURU SRI. SHIVARATHRI RAJENDRA CIRCLE, MYSORE-570004. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 6 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADV. FOR R1,R3 & R4; SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26-07-2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.60868/2011 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL & ETC., IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100566/2024: BETWEEN THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BY ITS SECRETARY, 14/3, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-1. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ SABARAD V., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SRI. NARAYAN S/O BHIMARAO KADEMANI SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS 1.A SRI. MOHAN S/O NARAYAN KADEMANI AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O II CROSS, MALMADDI, DHARWAD-58001. SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S 1.A(i) SMT. ANJANA W/O. MOHAN KADEMANI AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KADEMANI BUILDING, IIND CROSS, MALMADDI, DHARWAD. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 1.A(ii) SMT. SPOORTI W/O. VISHAL DESAI AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 2906, WING 29, LODHA AMARA, KOLSHET ROAD, THANE WEST, THANE, MAHARASHTRA-400607. 1.B. MAMTA SANTOSH KATAGI AGE. 60 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O C/O RAMAPPA SUNAGAR, OPP. TO HUBLI RESIDENCY BAIRIDEVARAKOPPA, HUBBALLI- 580025. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 3. J.S.S. MAHAVIDYAPEETHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JAGADGURU DR.SHIVARATHRI RAJENDRA CIRCLE, MYSORE-570004. SRI S.B. KADEMANI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 4.A SRI. DEVARAJ S/O SRINIVAS KADEMANI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O INDIRA PROJECTS, BANASHANKARI ARCYAD, NCM, HUBBALLI-580029. 4.B SRI. YASHWANTH S/O SRINIVAS KADEMANI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O INDIRA PROJECTS, BANASHANKARI ARCYAD, NCM, HUBBALLI-580029. 4.C SRI. RANGANATH S/O SRINIVAS KADEMANI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O INDIRA PROJECTS, BANASHANKARI ARCYAD, NCM, HUBBALLI-580029. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 5. SRI. R.B. KADEMANI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ANNIGERI, TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582201. 6. SRI T.B. KADEMANI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ANNIGERI, TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A)(i), R1(A)(ii) & R1(B); SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.71377/2012 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL & ETC., THE CONTEMPT PETITION AND WRIT APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, B.M.SHYAM PRASAD, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board [M/s KIADB] is in appeal calling in question the common order dated 26.07.2024 in W.P. Nos.71377/2012 and 60868/2011. The writ petition in W.P. No.71377/2012 is by Sri. Narayan S/o. Bhimarao Kademani, and the writ petition in W.P. No.60868/2011 is by the legal heirs of his brother, Sri. Timmappa @ Timmanna S/o. Bhimarao Kademani. Sri. Narayan S/o. Bhimarao Kademani has died during the pendency of the petition in W.P. No.71377/2012 and his legal representatives have come on record. 2. These petitions are filed calling in question the final notification dated 06.02.2008 issued under Section 28[4] of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act [for short, ‘the KIAD Act’]. This notification, which is hereafter referred to as ‘the impugned final notification’, is issued to bring about a culmination of the acquisition proceedings begun with the notification dated 10.02.1981 under Section 28[1] of the KIAD Act. This notification dated 05.11.1981 is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 issued for more than 200 acres in different villages, including the land in Sy. No.127, measuring 27 acres 4 guntas, of Kelageri village, Dharwad Taluk and District [the subject property] for the purpose of establishing an Industrial Area. However, the impugned final notification is issued for acquisition of just the subject property for the benefit of M/s. J.S.S. Mahavidyapeetha [the fourth respondent in the writ petitions]. The parties, for reasons of convenience, are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petitions with the appellant being referred to as M/s. KIADB. 3. The petitioners and the fourth respondent have filed similar Joint Memos in the writ proceedings stating amongst others that [a] during the pendency of the writ petitions the suit in O.S. No.61/2005 [a partition suit] is decreed declaring that Sri. Narayan S/o. Bhimarao Kademani and his three brothers are entitled to 1/4th share in the compensation payable for the subject property [as also other properties mentioned in the plaint], [b] the petitioners and the fourth respondent do not have any objections for quashing the impugned final notification - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 insofar as an extent of 13 acres 22 guntas in the subject property demarcated according to the sketch enclosed to the Memo/s, [c] the petitioners, who will take 6 acres and 36 guntas per stripes, will be responsible to answer the claims, if any, by the other family members and the fourth respondent’s interest insofar as the remaining extent of 13 acres 22 guntas that will continue to vest with the State Government for the benefit of the fourth respondent as contemplated under KIAD Act. 4. Admittedly, M/s. KIADB has not agreed to be part of these Memos, and with the petitioners and the fourth respondent being steadfast on the terms of the settlement as aforesaid and with M/s. KIADB proposing to contest the challenge to the impugned final notification, the writ Court has heard the learned senior counsel / counsels for the parties and disposed of the petitions in the following terms. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 [i] The impugned final notification1 is quashed to the extent of 13 acres and 22 guntas in the subject property i.e., 6 acres 31 guntas for the benefit of each set of petitioners as demarcated in the sketch annexed to the Joint Memo /s and this impugned final notification is confirmed for the remaining extent of 13 acres 22 guntas. [ii] The Revenue Authorities are directed to delete the name of M/s. KIADB to the extents to which the impugned final notification is quashed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order and to mutate the petitioners’ names for the concerned extents. 5. The writ Court has examined the merits of the impugned final notification answering questions such as [i] whether this notification is issued in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 28[3] of KIAD Act, 6 acres 31 guntas 6 acres 31 guntas, [ii] whether a final notification 1 The writ Court in the operative portion has referred to the final notification as being dated 30.10.1981, but it is affirmed before this Court that the impugned Final Notification is dated 06.02.2008 and the initial notification is dated 30.10.1981. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 under Section 28[4] of KIAD Act can be issued after the expiry of 27 years when no time limit is prescribed for the conclusion of the acquisition proceedings, [iii] whether notification under Section 28[4] of the KIAD Act can be issued for the sole purpose of providing amenity to an educational institution deviating from the purpose for which the initial notification is issued under Section 29[1], [iv] whether the impugned final notification is issued in colourable exercise of power and [v] whether the writ petitions are to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The writ Court has answered each of the afore questions in favour of the petitioners while also accepting the Memos filed by the petitioners and the fourth respondent. 6. This Court has heard on the petitioners’ preliminary objection on the maintainability of these intra- court appeals in the light of the following question. Whether this Court must hold that these intra- court appeals are maintainable if the land losers [the petitioners] and the beneficiary / allottee [the fourth respondent] unequivocally state that, to - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 put quietus to all dispute, they have agreed to own [use] the land allotted in certain percentages without howsoever prejudicing the statutory requirements and M/s KIADB’s interest and when such agreement is accepted by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court must now record that the following have been emphasized as the indisputable facts and circumstances, and that the answer to the afore question must be in the light of these facts and circumstances. This Court has informed the learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel that if the answer to the afore question is in the negative i.e., the intra- court appeals are not maintainable, these appeals will have to be admitted for final disposal with the necessary interim arrangement to protect mutual interests; otherwise, the appeals must be rejected. A brief statement of the facts and circumstances presented as indisputable: 7. M/s. KIADB has issued notifications under Section 28[1] and Section 28[4] of the KIAD Act for acquisition of about 27 acres 4 guntas on 10.02.1981 and - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 05.11.1981 respectively for the purposes of establishing an Industrial Area simultaneously with the notification dated 10.02.1981 under Section 3[1] of the KIAD Act. However, Sri. Narayan S/o. Bhimarao Kademani and his brother Sri. Srinivas S/o. Bhimarao Kademani have filed writ petitions in W.P. Nos.6448-6449/1982 calling in question these notifications insofar as the subject property. They have arrayed their two brothers [Sri. Ramachandra S/o. Bhimarao Kademani and Sri. Timmappa S/o. Bhimarao Kademani] as the third and the fourth respondents. The present petitioners claim under Sri. Narayan S/o. Bhimarao Kademani and Sri. Timmappa S/o. Bhimarao Kademani. In the memorandum of this petition, these two brothers have referred to an oral division of the subject property / and other properties and the continuation of the revenue entries for the subject property in favour of Sri. Srinivas S/o. Bhimarao Kademani as he is the eldest brother. 7.1 The writ Court has allowed the writ petition in W.P. Nos.6448-6449/1982 by the order dated 26.07.1984 quashing the final notification dated 05.11.1981 on the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 ground of violation of the principles of natural justice but with liberty to M/s. KIADB / other respondents to continue with the acquisition proceedings subject to compliance with the requirements under Section 28[3] of the KIAD Act. The writ Court has observed that because the notification did not mention the names of the petitioners therein, there is violation of principles of natural justice. After this Court’s order dated 26.07.1984 objections have been filed on 06.12.1985/04.01.1985 on why the acquisition proceedings must not be continued. M/s. KIADB on 11.07.1989 [in its 143rd Board Meeting] has resolved to give up the subject property from acquisition. 7.2 Sri. Ramachandra S/o. Bhimarao Kademani and Sri. Timmappa S/o. Bhimarao Kademani [the third and fourth respondents in W.P. Nos.4668-4669/1982] have commenced the suit in O.S. No.61/2005 for partition of different immovable properties, and the subject property is listed in the plaint as Schedule ‘G’ property. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad has addressed the Communication dated 25.11.2006 to the Special Land - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 Acquisition Officer, M/s. KIADB Zonal Office, Dharwad referring to a communication by the fourth respondent on 06.11.2006 and informing that notification can be issued for acquisition of the subject property if the landowners agree. On 16.01.2007, Sri Srinivas Rao’s sons have filed consent for acquisition of the subject property and to receive compensation for the same. 7.3 The records produced demonstrate that M/s KIADB has issued notice to Sri. Narayan S/o. Bhimarao Kademani in the month of September 2007 but only to be noted that he is not residing at the address available. The proceedings under Section 28[3] of the KIAD Act, saved in terms of the order dated 26.07.1984, is concluded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, M/s. KIADB, Dharwad vide order dated 06.10.2007 referring to the consent filed by the sons of Sri. Srinivas S/o. Bhimarao Kademani and opining that there are no objections for the culmination of the acquisition proceedings. Consequentially the impugned final notification is issued. The family members of Sri. Srinivas S/o. Bhimarao Kademani have received compensation in a - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 sum of Rs.42,91,628/- [Rs.14,30,542/- and Rs.28,61,086/-] as compensation under Section 29[2] of the KIAD Act. 7.4 The suit in O.S. No.61/20052 is decreed on contest by the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2021. The civil Court, opining that in view of the Apex Court decision in Commissioner, BDA vs. K.S.Narayan3 it cannot decide the legality of the acquisition proceedings, has observed that one of the sons of Sri. Srinivas S/o. Bhimarao Kademani has received compensation on behalf of his branch. The civil Court’s finding in this regard is on an Issue framed on whether this person proves that the acquisition of the subject property is not binding on him. The civil Court has ultimately decreed the suit holding that the branches of the four brothers will be entitled per stripes equally for the compensation received by the family members of Sri. Srinivas S/o Bhimarao Kademani. The petitioners have called the civil Court’s judgment and decree in R.F.A. No.100191/2023, and this appeal is pending consideration. 2 M/s. KIADB and the fourth respondent are parties to this suit as the sixth and the thirteenth defendants respectively. 3 [2006] 8 SCC 336 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 The details of Contempt Proceedings in CCC No. 100349/2024: 8. The petitioners in W.P. Nos.71377/2012 have filed complaint under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiation of proceedings against the Revenue Authorities and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, M/s. KIADB. These petitioners have alleged that the writ Court’s direction for changes in the revenue entries are not complied with deliberately. This Court opines that if the petitioners succeed on the question framed for consideration, these contempt proceedings will have to be closed with appropriate liberty. 9. This Court, before referring to the respective submissions for a decision on the question framed, must record that the petitioners and the fourth respondent are categorical that they standby the terms of the Joint Memo/s and that they acknowledge that acting upon the terms of the Memos they are in possession of the respective extents in - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 the subject property after demarcation by metes and bounds. Sri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad, the learned senior counsel for M/s. KIADB, has canvassed to persuade this Court to opine that the intra-court appeals are maintainable notwithstanding the preliminary objections. Sri. Madhusudhan R. Naik, a learned senior counsel, has led for the petitioners with Sri. Sunil S. Desai and Sri. Mrutyunjay S. Hallikeri, the learned counsels on record for the petitioners, completing the submissions on behalf of the petitioners. Sri. Prabhuling Navadgi, a learned senior counsel, has led for the fourth respondent. Sri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad’s submissions: 10. The writ Court has decided on the merits of the impugned final notification under Section 28[4] of the KIAD Act on grounds such as that the mandatory requirements of Section 28[3] of this Act are not complied with and that M/s. KIADB could not have issued this notification after 27 years. If the intra-court appeals are disposed of on the ground that this Court will not interfere with the writ Court’s order because of a settlement between - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 the petitioners [the land owners] and the fourth respondent [a lessee who cannot claim title to the property beyond the applicable regulations], the findings against M/s. KIADB’s decision will be confirmed denying the locus to challenge such findings. M/s. KIADB’s locus to challenge such findings cannot be in dispute. 10.1 The fourth respondent is an allottee who is entitled to leasehold rights but subject to the relevant Regulations, M/s. KIADB is the lessor. The petitioners / the fourth respondent cannot dispute that the subject property, with the publication of the notification under Section 28[4] of the KIAD Act, will vest with the State Government free of all encumbrances and the State Government, after this notification, hands over possession of the concerned property to M/s. KIADB as is envisaged under 28[8] of the KIAD Act. In this scheme of things there cannot be any settlement between those whose lands are acquired and the beneficiary excluding M/s. KIADB. In the present case, M/s. KIADB has not agreed to the settlement between the petitioners and the fourth respondent, and in fact, neither - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 the petitioners nor the fourth respondent have served even a copy of the Memos. 10.2 The petitioners have invoked jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call in question the impugned final notification to avail a public remedy against the State’s decision to acquire the subject property at the instance of M/s. KIADB. The settlement between the petitioners and the fourth respondent tantamount to a settlement of a private claim, and it is settled that an agreement to adjust private claims cannot be accepted in writ proceedings. This would be the indisputable settled position in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by LRs. and another v. B.D. Agarwal and others4. M/s. KIADB, therefore, cannot be denied the locus to demonstrate that the writ Court has erred quashing the impugned final notification. 10.3 The civil Court in O.S. No.06/2005 has decreed the suit declaring that each of the sons of the 4 [2003] 6 SCC 230 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 propositus, Sri. Bhimarao Kademani, will only be entitled to 1/4th share in the compensation which is already received by the sons of Sri. Srinivas S/o. Bhimarao Kademani. The resultant position will be that the petitioners will have to work out their remedies as against the other family members, subject to the decision in the pending appeal in R.F.A. No.100191/2023. 10.4 Further, the sons of Sri. Narayan S/o. Bhimarao Kademani, or the other members of the family, are not arrayed as parties to the petitions and a settlement is arrived between the petitioners, who in the aforesaid circumstances can only assert a limited interest, and the fourth respondent. M/s. KIADB can in the present appeals demonstrate that the agreement is incomplete and not amongst all the concerned members of the family and therefore the writ Court could not have accepted the Joint Memo/s to hold that a part of the impugned notification must be quashed. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 10.5 The writ Court has interfered with the impugned final notification opining that the same is in colourable exercise of power. If this notification is vitiated because it is in colourable exercise of power, the entire notification will have to fail. Despite the conclusion as aforesaid, if this notification is saved only because of a settlement between the petitioners and the fourth respondent, there will be an incongruity which will be impermissible in law. M/s. KIADB must have locus to demonstrate that the settlement is an impermissible incongruity and that it is entitled to protect its interest in the subject property. 10.6 If the question framed for consideration is answered against M/s. KIADB, it will not only be denied the opportunity to demonstrate the above but also the opportunity to point out that the writ Court could not have relied upon the decision in H.N. Shivanna and others v. State of Karnataka5 as that decision has been overruled 5 AIR 2013 KAR 163 - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 by a decision in W.A. No.1451/20186 which is decided on 02.03.2021. Sri. Madhusudhan R. Naik / Sunil S. Desai / Mrutyunjay S. Hallikeri’s submissions: 11. The writ Court has exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to bring a closure to the dispute that has subsisted over four decades commencing from 1981 with the petitioners and their family members [except the sons of Sri. Srinivas S/o. Bhimarao Kademani who have without the consent of the family members accepted compensation] agitating against the decision to acquire the subject property. Sri. Srinivas S/o. Bhimarao Kademani in the writ petition in W.P. Nos.4468-4469/1982 has admitted that his brother, Sri. Narayan S/o. Bhimarao Kademani, will be entitled to the subject property. Notwithstanding this, consent is filed by his sons excluding Sri Sri. Narayan S/o. Bhimarao Kademani. 6 This decision is affirmed in a decision by a larger Bench - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 11.1 The petitioners in W.P. No.713177/2012 claim under Sri. Narayan S/o. Bhimarao Kademani. They have agreed that the legal representatives of another brother Sri. Timmappa S/o. Bhimarao Kademani [the petitioners in WP No. 60868/2011] will be entitled to an extent of 6 acres 31 guntas in the subject property. Both these petitioners further agree that, between them, all claims by the other family members will be settled. If the petitioners have thus settled not only the inter se dispute amongst the family members insofar as the subject property as also the dispute with the fourth respondent, the writ Court’s decision to accept the Joint Memos filed by the petitioners and the fourth respondent is just and reasonable. Especially when it is not disputed that the impugned final notification is only for the benefit of the fourth respondent [and at its costs] and the fourth respondent giving up all claims against M/s. KIADB for the amounts deposited towards cost of this entire subject property and reiterating that it shall, subject to the reduced extent, comply with all the applicable regulations. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 11.2 This Court, in view of these circumstances, and the other circumstances emphasized in support of the question framed for consideration, cannot opine that the writ Court’s decision to accept the Memos is perverse. Unless a decision is shown to be perverse, the appellate Bench in an intra-court appeal will not interfere with the findings merely because another view is possible. This is settled with the decision of the Apex Court in Management of Narendra Company Private Limited v. Workman of Narendra and Company7. 11.3 The writ petitions in W.P. Nos.4468- 4469/1982 are allowed on the specific ground that the petitioners therein [Sri. Srinivas S/o. Bhimarao Kademani and Sri. Narayan S/o. Bhimarao Kademani] were not heard. M/s. KIADB is reserved with liberty to commence the proceedings from the stage of Section 28[4] of the KIAD Act, which is to extend an opportunity to Sri. Narayan S/o. Bhimarao Kademani. However, this opportunity of being 7 [2016] 3 SCC 340 - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 heard is not extended to him, and this is borne out by the following circumstances: [a] Sri. Narayan S/o. Bhimarao Kademani has filed objections to the proposal to continue with the acquisition of the subject property after the orders in the writ Court WP No.6448-6449/1982, but no steps were taken thereafter for almost a period of five years. [b] On 11.07.1989, M/s. KIADB’s Board of in its 143rd meeting has taken a decision to give up the acquisition of the subject property as also certain other properties. The inevitable conclusion from this decision is that M/s. KIADB has decided to abandon the proposal to acquire the subject property. [c] The family members have commenced the suit in O.S. No.6/2005 for partition of the different properties including the subject property, and it is after the commencement of suit, because of a requisition by the fourth respondent and a consent given by the legal heirs of one of the four brothers, the acquisition proceeding is restarted. The civil Court, even as on - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 22.12.2005, had granted temporary injunction restraining the parties from creating third party interest in the subject property. [d] The acquisition proceeding is concluded based on a consent given by one set of persons and beyond the object for which the initial notification was issued in the year 1981. M/s. KIADB cannot draw any strength from the conclusions of the civil Court in O.S. No.61/2005 inasmuch as the impugned notification is during the pendency of the suit and the petitioners’ grievance against the impugned notification can only be considered under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have invoked such jurisdiction with the civil Court’s conclusions in this regard. 11.4 M/s. KIADB is selective in opposing the settlement on ground that the concerned land owners and the beneficiary cannot settle the dispute. M/s. KIADB has raised similar ground in another intra-court appeal in W A No.2883/2019 when the land looser and the beneficiary [similarly placed as in this case because the allotment to the - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 beneficiary was under a single window arrangement] tried to settle the dispute over the decision to acquire the concerned land. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of this writ appeal on 12.07.2022 observing that no prejudice would be caused to M/s. KIADB if the beneficiary and the land loser agree upon adjustment of the land acquired with some relaxation to the land loser. M/s. KIADB has accepted this order without a challenge. 11.5 M/s. KIADB has also consented to a settlement between a land loser and the beneficiary in set of writ petitions in W.P. Nos.31325-31327/2015 and connected matters, which are disposed of on 23.04.2018. In these set of writ petitions, an application is filed by the land loser and the beneficiary for adjustment of the extents, and neither the State Government nor M/s. KIADB opposed this settlement. In similar circumstances, M/s. KIADB has either agreed for a settlement between the land losers and the beneficiary when the acquisition is solely for the benefit of the beneficiary concerned or has accepted the decision by - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 Courts to recognize the settlement notwithstanding the objections. This is established by a series of orders that are placed on record as part of additional compilation during the hearing. Sri Prabhuling Navadagi’s submissions: 12. The impugned final notification is issued only for the fourth respondent’s benefit because this respondent represented that it required the subject property for the better utilization of the land otherwise allotted by M/s KIADB. The fourth respondent could bring about consent in this regard only by one of the admitted owners of the subject property, but the petitioners [who also claimed interest in the subject property] and the fourth respondent have come together to agree upon a settlement. 12.1 If M/s KIADB succeeds in its grievance against the discretion exercised by the writ Court in accepting this settlement/ agreement, there would be an incongruity. If M/s KIADB tries to enforce the acquisition which is for the fourth respondent’s benefit, the land owners - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 [the petitioners] will perhaps successfully contend that the subject land is acquired for the fourth respondent’s benefit who has agreed to confine the use to only 13 acres and 22 guntas and that this would only mean that the acquisition is being sustained for the benefit of another contrary to the terms of the impugned final notification. 12.2 The culmination of the acquisition of the subject property is not typically as is contemplated under Section 28 of the KIADB Act. The provisions of Section 28 of this Act enable compulsory acquisition once an area is declared as an Industrial Area under Section 3 of the Act with a possible consent award under Section 29 of the Act. M/s KIADB could, given certain notifications issued by the State Government under relevant statutory provisions, initiate acquisition proceedings based on consent by a substantial percentage of the owners, but that would be a different set of circumstances. 12.3 This Court is examining whether intra court appeal against acceptance of the settlement under Article - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 226 of the Constitution can be maintained, and as is reiterated by the Apex Court in M.S. Sanjay Vs. Indian Bank & Others8 the administration of law must be tempered with equity and if a situation demands applying equity the High Courts would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction and that any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not. Sri Basavraj Sabard’s Reply: 13. Sri Basavaraj S. Sabarad, in reply, proposes to reiterate his submissions as is recorded at the first instance and also to distinguish the decisions relied upon by Sri Sunil S. Desai contending that those decisions were only when the allottee and the land owner agreed upon a minor arrangement with the allottee giving up smaller extents 5-9 guntas in favour of the land owners or when the acquisitions had not been completed. The learned senior counsel emphasizes that in the present case the acquisition is 8 Civil Appeal No. 1188/2025, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 368. - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 completed and award is drawn but the writ petition is filed after a lapse of over four years. Reasoning and Conclusion: 14. This Court must observe that the salient principle that the High Court jurisdiction under Article 226 is an extraordinary jurisdiction which is plenary in nature and the High Courts will, while administering law, temper its decision with equitable principles to ensure that a particular formulation prevails given the realities of a factual situation is not under any serious challenge. Similarly, the other proposition that in intra court appeals, a writ Court’s finding will not be interfered with unless some perversion or illegality is demonstrated is also not in serious challenge. In these regards the reference could be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in S. Sanjay Vs. Indian Bank & Others and Management of Narendra Company Private Limited v. Workman of Narendra and Company supra. 14.1 If the maintainability of these intra Court appeals is to be examined with these two salient - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 propositions as bulwarks, it will be incumbent upon M/s KIADB to demonstrate that the writ Court’s order accepting the settlement, while making certain observations on the merits of the impugned final notification it is either inequitable or perverse. If M/s KIADB cannot demonstrate these, this Court will not be persuaded to hold that these intra court appeals will be maintainable. The question framed therefore will have to be examined both in the factual matrix and the scheme of the KIAD Act. 14.2 On factual matrix, the relevant circumstances are either admitted or undisputed. The first notification under Section 28(1) of KIAD Act is issued on 10.02.1981 for a much larger extent, but the subject property is taken out of the fold of the acquisition because of the orders of the writ Court in W.P. Nos.4668-4669/1982. The writ Court has interdicted the final notification dated 05.11.1981 under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act but with liberty to M/s KIADB to hear the petitioners therein [Sri Narayan S/o Bheemarao Kademani and Sri Srinivas S/o Bheemarao Kademani]. These two brothers have filed their objections in - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 terms of this liberty, and M/s KIADB’s decision on 11.07.1989 [in its 143rd Board Meeting] is to give up the acquisition of the subject property. 14.3 If these make the first set of circumstances which constitute the overall factual matrix, the next set of circumstances are that two other brothers [Sri Ramachandra S/o Bheemarao Kademani and Sri Timmappa S/o Bheemarao Kademani] have commenced the suit for partition in O.S. No. 61/2005, and it is in the initial days of the suit that some of the legal representatives of Sri Srinivas Bheemarao Kademani [one of the four brothers] have filed consent resulting in the Special Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad writing on 25.11.2006 to the SLAO, M/s KIADB Zonal Office, Dharwad for completion of the acquisition notification. After this communication, notice is issued to Sri Narayan Kademani S/o Bheemarao Kademani, but without completion of due service of notice. The impugned final notification is issued with only the legal representatives of Sri Srinivas S/o Bheemarao Kademani, receiving - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 compensation as is contemplated under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act. 14.4 The final set of circumstances which make up the factual matrix is that the family members have continued the suit in O.S. No. 61/2005 for their rights in the subject property. When the suit is pending consideration, the present set of writ petitions are filed calling in question the impugned final notification. The suit in O.S. No. 61/2005 is decreed holding that the subject property must be partitioned by metes and bounds in four equal parts but because the impugned final notification is issued, the compensation payable must be so apportioned. It is in this flux of circumstances that the petitioners have agreed with the fourth respondent [the identified beneficiary of the impugned final notification] that each of their families per stripes will be entitled to 6 acres and 36 guntas of the subject property and that the fourth respondent will be entitled to the remaining extent of 13 acres 22 guntas. - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 14.5 Crucially if the petitioners agree that they will be answerable to answer all claims from the family members to protect the fourth respondent’s interest in the extent of 13 acres 22 guntas demarcated for its use, the fourth respondent has stated that subject to this reduction in the area it shall comply with all the regulations and not raise a claim against M/s KIADB for the amount paid as value of the total extent. The petitioners and the fourth respondent, as is obvious from the submissions presented on their behalf, remain steadfast on these terms. This Court cannot infer any inequity in the settlement that is agreed between the petitioners and the fourth respondent, especially when incongruity as emphasized on behalf of the fourth respondent [as referred to in para 12.1 supra] is considered. Therefore the first limb of the consideration must be answered in favour of the petitioners and the fourth respondent. 14.6 Indubitably when the final notification is issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act, the subject property vests with the State Government by operation of - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 law as is envisaged under sub section (5) of Section 28. Thereafter, the State Government transfers the subject property to M/s KIADB for the purpose for which the subject land is acquired. M/s KIADB, subject to its regulations allots the respective portions to identify beneficiaries and an allottee is initially entitled only for lease cum sale agreement subject to resumption. The question of consent of the land owner would be crucial only in the matter of payment of compensation, unless the acquisition itself is based on consent. This in essence is the scheme under KIAD Act /notification issued relevant for the present purposes. 14.7 In the present case the acquisition proceedings are commenced in the year 1981, despite an intervening decision/ resolution to give up the acquisition of the subject property in the year 1989 after intervention in W.P. No. 4668-4669/1992, the impugned final notification is issued and that to based on a consent by one set of family members during the pendency of a civil suit where one of the Issue framed is whether the subject property ought to be divided amongst the family members. This Court, in the - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 peculiar circumstances of the case, must opine that an element of consent for acquisition [as against the consent for award] by one set of family members is introduced in the year 2007 to resurrect the acquisition proceeding which was resolved to be given up in 1989. 14.8 Further, with both the petitioners and the fourth respondent, being steadfast on the terms of the settlement and also stating that they have by now demarcated the subject property in terms of the Memos, this Court is not persuaded to opine that the scheme under the KIAD Act is violated to render the said agreement illegal. In this context this Court must also observe, as is emphasized by Sri Sunil S. Desai [the learned counsel for the petitioners] that M/s KIADB has also accepted inter-se settlement between certain land owner/s and allottees in the past and it is not confined to smaller extents alone. In this regard a reference can be made to the orders of a Coordinate bench of this Court in W.A. No. 2883/2019 which is disposed of on 12.07.2022. As such, the second limb of the consideration must also be answered in favor of the petitioner/ fourth - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 respondent. The final outcome of these two conclusions is that this Court must answer the question framed for consideration opining that the intra Court appeals are not maintainable. 14.9 The contentions on M/s KIADB’s locus and the writ Court’s observation otherwise on merits, in view of the overarching impact of the salient principles and the circumstances discussed, are not overwhelming to hold that the writ appeals are maintainable. One of M/s KIADB’s grievance is that it’s learned counsel on record in the writ petition was not even furnished with the copy of the memos filed much less heard on the terms of settlement. This Court, in the overall context discussed above and that the memos are admittedly filed in the open Court, must opine that this also cannot be fatal and disturb the settlement. In view of the current disposal of the writ appeals, the respondents must be granted reasonable time to comply with the writ Court’s directions to delete the name of M/s KIADB to the extents for which the notification dated 06.02.2008 is quashed. As such, the following: - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3923-DB CCC No. 100349 of 2024 C/W WA No. 100558 of 2024 WA No. 100566 of 2024 ORDER [a] The writ Appeals in No. 100558/2024 and 100566/2024 are rejected. [b] The contempt proceedings in CCC 100349/2024 are closed directing the respondents in such proceedings to implement the writ Court’s direction within 8 [eight] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a certified copy of this order within [4] four weeks from the date of receipt thereof. [c] It is needless to observe that the petitioners will be at liberty to seek revival of this complaint CCC No. 100349/2024 if there is any failure to comply with the direction. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH/BVV CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 44